[kefka]

And I would argue that fighting against marriage rights (for LGBT) is our version of Jim Crow laws. History will show that people; all people deserve equal rights and protections under the law. Desegregation took decades, and arguably still isn't completely successful, given laws that disproportionately target black communities.

And this isn't about a church refusing to marry someone because of their sexuality. This is about governmental rights and legal rights conferred to married couples.

Or on a more dour note: What happens if a homosexual couple moves to a state that bans that practice, and they choose to divorce?

That's why this stuff is important.

[drone]

If it's important, shouldn't people be able to have a conversation, and fund a conversation?

The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position.

Therefore, we can only see this as an attempt to ostracize and attack anyone who speaks to the opposite side. This action is chilling on speech, which is exactly what the OP was talking about. Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't mean it isn't, and won't be perceived by others that way.

I think proposition 8 was the wrong thing, promoted for bad reasons and on the wrong side of where society needs to be, but I also happen to feel that this attempt to quash any possibility of opposing free speech by ensuring to mob anyone who rises to the top having once taken a view we don't agree with as far more dangerous and harmful for our society than prop 8 could ever have been. It enforces positions without the liberty of allowing speech, and without the ability to challenge in court, as bad laws do.

[asdfologist]

Simply "taking a view we don't agree with" isn't the same thing as actively funding an effort to take away the rights of others, including ones who work in the company you're managing.

[kefka]

> The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position.

I think this is the root issue here. SCOTUS declared by fiat that financial contribution is speech. According to our law, it is now.

The people do not see that the same way. Giving lip service is speech, while money is altogether something different. What it is, I do not know.

And it seems much more akin to "buying laws", which I think many people find something terribly wrong in our government today.

[drone]

While there are situations where the exercising of speech in that manner can cause harm (e.g. very large contributions to politicians), I believe that harm is outweighed by the good. No on can outlaw me donating to the EFF, or other charitable organizations, which would most certainly happen when it suits the lawmakers' purposes, given that it is enshrined as speech and protected by the 1st amendment. Just like the first amendment protects hateful speech, it also protects beneficial and helpful speech. Perhaps you're not thinking of Buckley v. Valeo, but instead of Citizens United, that countered that speech could not be restricted because it was done by a corporation. I am not venturing into that territory here.

There is almost always some harm done by liberty, that is the pain of humanity. There is much further harm done when we restrict liberty to protect the senses. That is my opinion, and I am as surely unlikely to be swayed from it as you are yours.

[kefka]

I was not up on my case law regarding Buckley v. Valeo, but I do remember now after having looked it up. Unfortunately, I don't have the legal backbone to discuss case law proper. I was trying to discuss more akin to philosopher language.

After having slept on why money in politics bothers me, I think I can better explain why it does.

Normally, a vote from me counts as the same as a vote from any resident in Indiana. And I can extrapolate that to show that my vote is pretty much equal to any citizen in the US. When we add money, it changes that "1 person, 1 vote" to "1 rich person, lots of votes: 1 poor person, 1 vote"

When we distill that down, we are saying that a rich person is much more important than an average income person, or even that homeless indigent voters are worthless. That doesn't sit right with me.

[Houshalter]

I agree it's pretty bad, but not being able to marry is not as severe as segregation and discrimination in almost everything (and against a much larger portion of the population.)